Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
NIVARTI GOVIND INGALE & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
REVANAGOUDA BHIMANAGOUDA PATIL
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/11/1996
BENCH:
K. PAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
Substitution and impleadment allowed.
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment
and order of the Karnataka High Court, made on January 6,
1992 in RSA No. 933/78.
The admitted position is that one Radhabai, mother of
the appellants was the owner of 4 acres 38 gunthas of land
in Paschayapur Village in Bijapur Taluka and District in
Karnataka State. According to her, she, with a view to dig a
well in R.S. No. 299, namely, the same land, had obtained a
loan in the year 1961 from the father of the respondent in
the a sum of Rs. 1,000/-, Since she was not in a position to
complete the digging of the well, she approached again for a
sum of Rs. 2,000/- to complete the well. the respondent’s
father who is a Constable had advanced the money on the
condition that she would execute the sale deed in favour of
his minor son, i.e., the respondent. Accordingly, she
executed the sale deed with an agreement of re-conveyance
which was accordingly executed on August 31, 1961. She
stated that she has paid from time to time a sum of Rs.
7,000/- and she asked the respondent to execute the re-
conveyance and the respondent had not executed the deed of
re-conveyance. Consequently, she filed the suit for specific
performance. The trial Judge decreed OS No. 4/1966 on the
file of the Additional Munsif, Bijapur on April 3, 1976. On
appeal, the Additional Civil Judge allowed the appeal on
November 7, 1977 and dismissed the suit. The second appeal
was dismissed by the High Court. Thus, this appeal by
special leave.
The High Court found that since the agreement of re-
conveyance was not for the benefit of the minor, the decree
for specific performance cannot be granted. The leave of the
court was not obtained for entering into such an agreement
and, therefore, the appellant is not entitled to the benefit
of the specific performance. We find no force in the
reasoning of the High Court in the facts and circumstances
of this case. It is seen that appellant’s mother is the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
owner of the property. She had obtained loan from the
respondent and executed the sale deed with an agreement of
re-conveyance. When the father of the respondent had
obtained the sale deed in the name of the minor, obviously
he is bound by the agreement of re-conveyance as well.
Having received the money, he had not executed the sale
deed. Necessarily, the appellants are entitled to seek the
specific performance. Under these circumstances, the
question that agreement was not for the benefit of the minor
which is a legal proposition, cannot be applied to the
facts. It is contended that subsequent purchaser from the
father of the respondent of the self-same property, without
knowledge of the pendency of the suit is bound by the
agreement. We find no force in the contention. The
appellants have been seeking the remedy in the civil suit;
any subsequent sale will be barred by the doctrine of lis
pendes. Therefore, the subsequent purchaser is bound by the
decree of specific performance and liable to reconvey the
property to the appellants. The decree of the trial Judge is
accordingly restored and that of the High Court and the
Additional Civil Judge stand set aside. The remedy of
recovery of the purchased money from the respondent may be
sought in an appropriate action.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.